if bitcoin development can be stalled by the argument “but these guys in suits invested billions of dollars and we don’t want to upset them”
then it became a fancy delegated proof of stake system
dan larimer’s wildest dream lol
Great Script Restoration would be a good start to bring the cypherpunk builders back to Bitcoin.
Then MWEB for extra scaling and privacy.
BIP300 too, though this one is likely to happen if Paul convinces a majority of miners to deploy it. Won’t pursue the BIP process anymore.
Let the devs do the deving, stop all this purity test nonsense which doesn’t even pay the miners to compensate for the diminishing subsidy.
i became interested in bitcoin because of its potential to build a parallel economy that offers an alternative to the censorship-friendly & orwellian mainstream financial system
so of course i want it to become private/fungible + scale to onboard millions of people at a cost much lower than western union/banks
so i get angry when i see a bunch of suits hijacking the narrative by providing “education” that makes sure hundreds of thousands of new community members only want to use it as a pet rock and actively oppose any improvement whatsoever
it’s a sybil attack on consensus which effectively freezes the ability to do any network upgrades
if guys like saylor can decide which dev gets funding and from where, then they discourage the medium of exchange function and manipulate the narrative on something as significant as self-custody, millions of people miss out on the once in a generation opportunity to fix the broken money system
if guys like saylor amass this much influence, bitcoin is effectively a delegated proof of stake system
i’m fine with finance bros using bitcoin for whatever. bitcoin is for enemies, right?
but when you weaponize your army of trolly ngu simps to effectively stall the progress of the project, i will do my best to remind people why i came here and what the mission used to be until just a few years ago
use bitcoin as a pet rock if you want, but don’t try to tell others what they should do with something that’s supposed to be freedom money
don’t ruin the lives of millions of people living under tyranny only because you want to see your number go up and you’re afraid of regulators
i may not have the same platform as saylor and i may not pass arbitrary purity tests from high priests, but at least i am honest and willing to use my significantly smaller platform to remind people why bitcoin was created and what it should ultimately become
Not directly implying that, but it’s very possible. Maybe they deleted this data, maybe they didn’t and the feds have it now.
The issue is that it was possible to have it in the first place.
saylor demoralized you with his “self-custody is for paranoid crypto anarchists” rant?
watch s15 e61 of the bitcoin takeover podcast to take your self-custody game to the next level!
which hardware wallet is best for you?
do you need a multisig?
which software wallets should you use on desktop and mobile?
what’s the difference between multisig and shamir?
how many backups do you need?
how should you manage your backups?
what is the 3-2-1 rule and why should you use it?
take 90 minutes of your time to find out the answers to these questions 💪🏻
https://www.youtube.com/live/GPZKJUyICvI?si=if86Nc6zic1iE_JS
last week an audit of the samourai wallet whirlpool code revealed that the coordinator could match a coinjoin’s inputs and outputs – thus providing zero privacy against samourai.
nostr:npub1v6qjdzkwgaydgxjvlnq7vsqxlwf4h0p4j7pt8ktprajd28r82tvs54nzyr reported it, didn’t see too many reactions.
why aren’t more people talking about this?
in august 2017, i don’t recall anyone saying that btc will become a store of value from institutions, while bch will pursue the medium of exchange path.
no such narrative existed – it was only a disagreement on how to scale: btc went for layer 2s, bch chose to increase the block size.
it was years later that the capitulation to institutions happened: when big money started flowing into lightning network development and companies started gaslighting us that home nodes are slowing down the network and we should use easily-regulated and censorship-bound lsps or else surrender custody when the amounts are small.
a lot of developers i’ve interviewed over the years told me that they were never against increasing the block size: they were only against the terms of the new york agreement and didn’t see the urgency of taking action back in 2016-2017… but would agree with a block size increase later when there’s constant network demand.
but in the end, a bunch of guys stepped in and created a toxic culture which regards any attempt to improve bitcoin as an attack.
who benefits from this status quo? custodians, banks, credit card companies that no longer feel endangered, western union that is somehow still around and thriving, politicians and central bankers.
somewhere along the line, bitcoin lost its cypherpunk spirit… and i am here to bring it back every week with my podcast.
listen to the bitcoin takeover podcast, there’s nothing quite like it.
Which magazine so you want to get?
There are some copies for sale at the LNBits shop and Paralelni Polis.
Otherwise, you can use the free digital website to print your own copies.
I’m about to go live with Polto and Darko, the co-founders of Hodling.ch
Get ready to learn more about how you can improve your self-custody setup!
Watch out for the 3-2-1 rule, it’s important!
In S15 E61 of the Bitcoin Takeover podcast, Hodling.ch co-founders Polto & Darko talk about self custody best practices.
Tune im tomorrow at 8 PM CET to learn about the 3-2-1 rule and how you can improve your current setup without spending any money!
Subscribe: https://bitcoin-takeover.com/audio 
bitcoin maximalism can’t be sustained by silly narratives and dogma.
it also requires a technological argument that supports the “bitcoin can do it better” thesis.
without something like drivechains or trustless zk rollups, bitcoin maximalism will get replaced by fabulous multiconery very soon.
ergo, maximalism will die under a culture of complacent and borderline cultish conservatism.
Just in case you were wondering, here are some stats concerning the most recent episodes of the Bitcoin Takeover podcast.
It ain't much, but it's the highest quality audience in the world!
Thank you Sideshift, StarkWare, LayerTwoLabs & Hodling.ch for sponsoring!
Also thanks to everyone who listened to the show, as well as everyone who joined as a guest! 
Is something still a scam if it’s completely honest about what it is and how it works?
Your teenage kids will become what you call today "shitcoin scammers".
And there's nothing you can do about it.
Too many bitcoiners are fucking communists who expect others to work for free to only please them, and also live like monks.
Then they complain when open source projects or podcasts get money from people/companies that aren't pure enough.
How about you start paying for the stuff you like instead of being a cheap ass who posts pictures of socks with holes in them while bragging that they never sold any bitcoin?
It's no rocket science, someone has to pay for all the work. And if it ain't you and your friends, it's probably someone you don't like.
But if you don't want to pay/donate and enjoy having everything handed to you for free, at least don't waste everyone's time with your complaints. Nobody cares outside of your circlejerk.
What if privacy comes to Bitcoin, but the Saylor'd community rejects it and it never gets adopted?
Listen to Robin Linus (BitVM), Liam Eagen (Alpen Labs) & Jonas Nick (Blockstream) answer this question on S15 E38 of the Bitcoin Takeover podcast, during which they explain their Shielded Client Side Validation paper – a proposal that can help Bitcoin get 100 private transactions per second!
https://www.youtube.com/live/f8aNWuBNnik?si=4GRjjElHtafAsfn3